In Cancun, Bolivia Stood Alone (Maybe)

Readers of this blog may recall that last April, I attended the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Right’s of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia. More than 30,000 of us gathered in a high Andes valley to discuss, debate, and ultimately demand, meaningful global action to address climate change. The People’s Accord, which came out of the conference, was delivered to the United Nations by the Bolivian Government in subsequent weeks. But it was ultimately ignored at the UN sponsored climate negotiations that just concluded in Cancun, Mexico.

The following statement by Bolivian Ambassador Pablo Solon, who has emerged as one of the leading global advocaters for meaningful carbon reductions, appeared in yesterday’s British Guardian.

Yes, Bolivia was the only country that did not sign the modest, non-binding agreement that came out of the Mexico meeting.

• Statement of Pablo Solon, Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations.

We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. But we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth
by Pablo Solon

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 15.54 GMT
Diplomacy is traditionally a game of alliance and compromise. Yet in the early hours of Saturday 11 December, Bolivia found itself alone against the world: the only nation to oppose the outcome of the United Nations climate change summit in Cancún. We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. Yet in truth we did not feel alone, nor are we offended by the attacks. Instead, we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth.

The “Cancún accord” was presented late Friday afternoon, and we were given two hours to read it. Despite pressure to sign something – anything – immediately, Bolivia requested further deliberations. This text, we said, would be a sad conclusion to the negotiations. After we were denied any opportunity to discuss the text, despite a lack of consensus, the president banged her gavel to approve the document.

Many commentators have called the Cancún accord a “step in the right direction.” We disagree: it is a giant step backward. The text replaces binding mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary pledges that are wholly insufficient. These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act.
Bolivia may have been the only country to speak out against these failures, but several negotiators told us privately that they support us. Anyone who has seen the science on climate change knows that the Cancún agreement was irresponsible.

In addition to having science on our side, another reason we did not feel alone in opposing an unbalanced text at Cancún is that we received thousands of messages of support from the women, men, and young people of the social movements that have stood by us and have helped inform our position. It is out of respect for them, and humanity as a whole, that we feel a deep responsibility not to sign off on any paper that threatens millions of lives.

Some claim the best thing is to be realistic and recognise that at the very least the agreement saved the UN process from collapse.

Unfortunately, a convenient realism has become all that powerful nations are willing to offer, while they ignore scientists’ exhortations to act radically now. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that in order to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise in temperature below 1.5C, emissions must peak by 2015. The attempt in Cancún to delay critical decisions until next year could have catastrophic consequences.

Bolivia is a small country. This means we are among the nations most vulnerable to climate change, but with the least responsibility for causing the problem. Studies indicate that our capital city of La Paz could become a desert within 30 years. What we do have is the privilege of being able to stand by our ideals, of not letting partisan agendas obscure our principal aim: defending life and Earth. We are not desperate for money. Last year, after we rejected the Copenhagen accord, the US cut our climate funding. We are not beholden to the World Bank, as so many of us in the south once were. We can act freely and do what is right.

Bolivia may have acted unusually by upsetting the established way of dealing with things. But we face an unprecedented crisis, and false victories won’t save the planet. False agreements will not guarantee a future for our children. We all must stand up and demand a climate agreement strong enough to match the crisis we confront.

Jeff Jones

6 Responses

“Studies indicate that our capital city of La Paz could become a desert within 30 years.”

What are you talking about, La PAz is located in a mountain valley at an elevation of 3600 meters. La Paz only gets 21 inches of rain a year anyway, it’s almost a desert already. What studies would be needed to arrive at that brilliant conclusion? Lol!

Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances. CO2 has no observed net driving effect on temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data which the ‘Global Warmers’ refuse to properly consider.

Such assertions fly in the face of a vast mountain of scientific data from around the world during the last several decades, and contradicts what the scientific community has been known and understood about CO2 for the last century.

The burning of fossil fuels release CO2. That is indisputable and measurable. It is worse than wishful thinking to believe that temperatures are somehow magically “creating” CO2.

And magical thinking is of no use in dealing with a rational problem. We need the thinking of engineers, not political partisans…

Brian, check out http://www.weatheraction.com/ in the Global warming debate section. The vast mountain of data is fundamentally flawed by the under lying agenda. The weather is shifting due to natural causes not man made ones.

“The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains fraud.”

Personally, if I had a serious health problem, I would put my faith in the doctors who specialize in it, and not someone who claims all those doctors are frauds, but yet refuses to hold up his work product for scrutiny.

Here is a website much more worth an investment of time than that of Mr. Corbyn …The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. It is a consortium of 75 U.S. universities engaged in published research on this topic.